Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-28
Fort Worth people visit the Great Fair and Exposition
Daily and sleep at home at night.

pay. The judgment of the court below is
reversed and here rendered for appellant.
Reversed and rendered. Stayton, J.
Franklin county vs.. j. E. Brooks; appeal
from franklin. This action was brought
by appellee against appellant for damages
for the appropriation of land for 6 public
road by the county. The defense was
the statute OF limitation of two years. It
| appears that in September, 1876, the
| county commissioners ordered the road 20
! be opened. The overseer opened the
road but not in accordance with the re-
port OF the jury OF view approved by the
commissioners. This road thus
| opened was used and kept
| in repair until November %, 1884
! There was no act OF the commissioners
prior to above date which asserted the
right Of the county to have the road ruH
| gu The lire where the overseer placed it.
! On above date the court ordered the road
changed, and It is conceded that the road
IS laiG out il 1876 over eppellee's land
continued TO be used. This action was
brought Dec. %, 1885. Held: That not
until November, 1881, did the Commits
| sioners' court assert right TO have the
road where it is now. Appellee had no
The suit was instituted less than two
years after the right accrued. Affirmed.
Stsyson, J.
Thurman; appeal from Marion. Several
actions were Instituted in the District
court for Merion county against Jones,
EdgeWorth IS 3lIers, and in each of these
attachments were sued out and levied
mn VIII
snG Csss counties. The third suit fled
and attachment run was the appellees.
All the property seized except this in
controversy, was sold and the money
paid into court Appellant fled claim ard
proved against each OF the persons who
had caused attachments to be levied en-
the property in controversy as the
property OF Jones, Edgeworth and Sellers.
Judgment was rendered for each of the
parties suing who had caused attach
ments TO be issued. In the triEI fer the
right OF property, the judgment in each
case was against appellant. It is claimed
that the court erred in entering any judg-
menE whatever, declaring th85 the
property claimed by appellant was
subject to the attachment levied In
the sction instituted by appellee
and that the only judgment that should
have been entered wss one for costs.
Held: There is no merit in this PROPOSE
ton. Appellant made claim TO the prop
erty, claiming that the property was not
subject TO the payment OF the several
debts, and he cannot be heard to com
plain that the court adjudicates that
which he asked ii to adjudicste. Rule SO
Of this court, as amended at the last Gal
weston term, provides that the District or
County court clerk shan prepare trans
script, not alphabetically, but shall
conform to the order in which
the proceedings appear IS transcribed.
The index to the statement of facts
in the case does not conform to this rule.
The clerk of this court is allowed $5 for
msking proper index. Affirmed. Stay
ton, j.
Rush Bros. ct 81 vs. Geo. B. Thsg-
garJ; appeal from Css5. This action was
brought by sppellee in justice crurt 70 re-
cover on sixty five pieces OF paper, each
in form as follows: GOOD for (nere a
sum was named) in merchandise st Rlsh
& Bros, Springdale, Texas" Appellee
recovered judgment for full amount
and the case was appealed
to the District court where he recovered
Judgment for ten cents less. The proof
showed that appellants were mill owners
aud gave this paper TO their employees Is
time checks, and il WAS understood that
they were not to be transferred except to
certain persons. It YVES also sAown that
Of the end of each month the persons to
whom these papers were given were enti-
tied to be paid in merchandise or money.
Il was shown that appellee bought most
Of these papers from some one not in ap
pellee's employ, and some OF them from
employees. Il also appears that appellee
hsd before this time purchased other pa
pers, ana that appellants had ext cuted
their promissory note in satisfaction
OF saue, but informed him they in future
wo uld not make such settlement on any
other paper he might procore. Held: 1t
was proper to admit parel testimony to
show how snd for what purposes
the papers suec on were delivered
to their employees by defendants.
Also held: The pspsrs have nonerof the
qualities of negorissle instruments pay
able to bearer. and the mere possession |
Of them raises no presumption that the |